NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as
formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to
notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Noble Drive, Concord, New
Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the
opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address:
reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the
morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is:
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

___________________________

Lebanon District Court

No. 2002-445

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

v.

JOHN W. GOSS

Argued: June 11, 2003

Opinion Issued: September 29, 2003

Peter W. Heed, attorney general (Nicholas Cort, assistant attorney
general, on the brief and orally), for the State.

DesMeules, Olmstead & Ostler, of Norwich, Vermont (George H. Ostler
on the brief and orally), for the defendant.

NADEAU, J. The defendant, John W. Goss, appeals his conviction forpossession of
marijuana, see RSA 318-B:2 (Supp. 2002), arguing that the Trial Court (Cirone,
J) erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence. We reverse
and remand.

The following facts appear in the record. On August 28, 2001, Officer Keith Bergeron of
the Enfield Police Department applied for a warrant to search the defendants
residence. The affidavit stated in part that Detective Sergeant May of the Enfield Police
Department had observed "what appeared to be a grow light" in one of
the windows of the Goss residence which appeared "to have been intentionally obscured
with a white material, that seems to have been sprayed on." It also stated that on
August 14 and 28, 2001, Detective Sergeant May and Officer Bergeron, respectively, had
picked up trash from the Goss residence. The trash was in black plastic bags located in
the driveway to the Goss residence, about three feet from Oak Hill Road. The trial court
found that the bags were left out on the normal trash pick-up day. On each occasion, the
trash contained a wire scraper on which there was charred material that tested positive
for presumptive marijuana presence.

The application sought a warrant to search for and seize marijuana and specified items
typically used in, or indicative of, marijuana cultivation. The warrant was issued and
executed on August 28, 2001. The officers seized some marijuana, a marijuana cigarette and
three pipes. The defendant was charged with possession of marijuana in violation of RSA
318-B:2 and found guilty.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the warrant to search his residence was issued in
violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Part I,
Article 19 of the State Constitution. We first address the defendants claim under
our State Constitution and cite federal cases for guidance only. State v. Ball, 124
N.H. 226, 231, 232-33 (1983). "Our review of the superior courts order on a
motion to suppress is denovo, except as to any controlling facts determined
at the superior court level in the first instance." State v. Finn, 146 N.H.
59, 60 (2001) (quotation and brackets omitted).

The defendant contends that the search warrant should not have issued because the
affidavit contained information obtained from two prior illegal searches of his garbage,
and the remaining information did not establish probable cause. Specifically, the
defendant argues that the seizure of his garbage without a warrant, and not subject to any
recognized exception to the requirement for a warrant, was perse
unreasonable.

The defendant first argues, notwithstanding the trial courts finding to the
contrary, that because a driveway is part of a homes curtilage under New Hampshire
law, the trash was taken from the curtilage in violation of State law. In light of our
holding below, we need not decide whether the trial courts finding to the contrary
is supported by the evidence.

The defendant next contends that citizens have an expectation of privacy in their
garbage. He asserts that "[p]eople intend their garbage, though placed outside their
dwelling for collection, to remain private." In its brief, the State contended that
the defendant had failed to preserve this argument for appellate review. At oral argument,
however, the State indicated that it would not be opposed to the courts changing its
view on search and seizure issues to an expectation of privacy analysis. We therefore
address the defendants argument.

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353 (1967), the United States Supreme
Court first articulated an expectation of privacy analysis under the Fourth Amendment to
the Federal Constitution. Until today, we have not adopted such an analysis under our
State Constitution. See, e.g., State v. Pinkham, 141 N.H. 188, 189
(1996). We have, however, recognized that an expectation of privacy plays a role in the
protection afforded under Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution: "Our
State Constitution protects all people, their papers, their possessions and their homes
from unreasonable searches and seizures. It particularly protects people from unreasonable
police entries into their private homes, because of the heightened expectation of privacy
given to ones dwelling." State v. Grey, 148 N.H. 666, 668-69 (2002)
(citation omitted); seealsoPinkham, 141 N.H. at 193-94 (Broderick,
J., dissenting).

In State v. Canelo, 139 N.H. 376, 386 (1995), we noted that "Part I,
article 19 thus manifests a preference for privacy over the level of law enforcement
efficiency which could be achieved if police were permitted to search without probable
cause or judicial authorization." We there adopted an exclusionary rule under our
State Constitution, which, in part, "serves to redress the injury to the privacy of
the search victim." Id. at 387. We also declined to adopt a good faith
exception to the exclusionary rule because we found it "incompatible with and
detrimental to our citizens strong right of privacy inherent in part I, article 19
and the prohibition against the issuance of warrants without probable cause." Id.

We thushave tacitly recognized an expectation of privacy under our State
Constitution and believe the time has come to adopt explicitly a reasonable expectation of
privacy analysis under Part I, Article 19. We believe the most cogent articulation of that
analysis was supplied by Justice Harlan in his concurrence in Katz, 389 U.S. at
361: "My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that
there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective)
expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared
to recognize as reasonable." We therefore adopt Justice Harlans
two-part test under Part I, Article 19.

We conclude that the defendant exhibited an actual expectation of privacy in his trash
because he placed it in black plastic bags with the expectation it would be picked up by
authorized persons for eventual disposal. We also conclude that society is prepared to
recognize that expectation as reasonable. We acknowledge that the United States Supreme
Court has held, to the contrary, that "society would not accept as reasonable [a]
claim to an expectation of privacy in trash left for collection in an area accessible to
the public." California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 41 (1988). We are free,
however, to construe our State Constitution to provide greater protection than the Federal
Constitution. Seeid. at 43; Ball, 124 N.H. at 231-32. We do so here.

"Clues to peoples most private traits and affairs can be found in their
garbage. Almost every human activity ultimately manifests itself in waste products and any
individual may understandably wish to maintain the confidentiality of his refuse." State
v. Hempele, 576 A.2d 793, 802 (N.J. 1990) (quotation, brackets and ellipsis omitted).
Personal letters, bills, receipts, prescription bottles and similar items that are
regularly disposed of in household trash disclose information about the resident that few
people would want to be made public. SeePeople v. Edwards, 458 P.2d 713,
718 (Cal. 1969).

Nor do we believe that peoplevoluntarily expose such information to the public
when they leave trash, insealed bags, out for regular collection. ButseeGreenwood, 486 U.S. at 40. The Supreme Court reached the contrary conclusion on the
grounds that (1) "[i]t is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left on or at
the side of a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers,
snoops, and other members of the public," id. (footnotes omitted); and (2) the
"respondents placed their refuse at the curb for the express purpose of conveying it
to a third party, the trash collector, who might himself have sorted through [the] trash
or permitted others, such as the police, to do so," id.

We find the first ground persuasively answered by Justice Brennan in his Greenwood
dissent: "The mere possibility that unwelcome meddlers might open and
rummage through the containers does not negate the expectation of privacy in their
contents any more than the possibility of a burglary negates an expectation of privacy in
the home . . . ." Id. at 54.

As for the second ground, we do not believe that conveying trash to a trash collector
for disposal renders an expectation of privacy in the trash unreasonable. "It should
be reasonable to expect that those who are authorized to remove trash will do so in the
manner provided by ordinance or private contract." Hempele, 576 A.2d at 807.
In most cases that expectation would be that "the contents of [the residents]
garbage [would be] intermingled with other refuse in the well of the truck, and ultimately
dumped into a central collection place where the forces of nature would destroy
them." Smith v. State, 510 P.2d 793, 804 (Alaska 1973) (Rabinowitz, C.J.,
dissenting), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1086 (1973). We conclude that such an
expectation of privacy is reasonable.

We acknowledge that in finding protection under our State Constitution under these
circumstances, we join a small minority of courts. See, e.g., State v.
Tanaka, 701 P.2d 1274 (Haw. 1985); Hempele, 576 A.2d 793; State v. Boland,
800 P.2d 1112 (Wash. 1990). Like the court in Hempele, however,"we are
persuaded that the equities so strongly favor protection of a persons privacy
interest that we should apply our own standard rather than defer to the federal
provision." Hempele, 576 A.2d at 814 (quotation omitted). Because we have
found protection under our State Constitution, we need not conduct a separate federal
analysis. SeeBall, 124 N.H. at 232.

Because the warrantless search of the defendants garbage violated Part I, Article
19 of our State Constitution, the information obtained from that search should be excised
from the affidavit in support of the warrant and the remainder of the affidavit examined
to determine whether it establishes probable cause. SeeState v. Plch, 149
N.H. ___, ___, 826 A.2d 534, 545 (2003).

Following the States consent to strike information in the affidavit regarding a
neighbors tip to police, the only remaining factual averment is that Detective
Sergeant May observed an apparent "grow light" through a window that appeared to
have been obscured. We hold that this was insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish
probable cause. Accordingly, the fruits of the August 28 search should have been
suppressed, seeCanelo, 139 N.H. at 386-87, and the defendants
conviction must be reversed.

BRODERICK, J., dissenting. While I join with the majority in adopting a reasonable
expectation of privacy test under Part I, Article 19 of our State Constitution, a test
long used in Fourth Amendment analysis, I respectfully dissent because the facts of this
case and common experience do not support the majoritys holding. In my opinion and
in the overwhelming opinion of other jurisdictions, as well as the United States Supreme
Court, a defendants subjective expectation of privacy in the contents of his trash
left for pickup adjacent to a public way is not objectively reasonable. While a different
result may pertain for trash not yet placed near curbside for pickup, the salient
circumstances of this case do not trigger constitutional protection.

It is understandable that the defendant wanted the contents of his trash to be private.
Indeed, there are "many reasons why [citizens] would not want their castaway
clothing, letters, medicine bottles or other telltale refuse and trash to be examined by
neighbors or others." Smith v. State, 510 P.2d 793, 798 (Alaska) (quotation
omitted), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1086 (1973). As "[u]nderstandable as
this desire for confidentiality may be," however, "it is not conclusive of
societys willingness to recognize an expectation of privacy in a garbage receptacle
as reasonable." Id. To conclude otherwise, as the majority does, contravenes
collective common experience and extends constitutional protection as a cure for bad
manners and impolitic behavior.

In the real world to so view the status of ones discarded trash is totally
unrealistic, unreasonable, and in complete disregard of the mechanics of its disposal. . .
. The contents of the [bags] could not reasonably be expected by defendant to be secure,
nor entitled to respectful, confidential and careful handling on the way to the dump.
Trash generally is not so highly regarded. Collectors do not bear some kind of fiduciary
relationship with trash customers to make sure that their trash remains inviolate.

Although most people would probably prefer that others leave their trash untouched,
such intrusions are not unexpected. As the United States Supreme Court has observed,
"[i]t is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a
public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other
members of the public." California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 40 (1988). This
is no less true in 2003 than it was in 1988  would that it were otherwise.
"Most people know that their garbage will be seen at some point by a third person, at
the very least by the local garbage collector. Most people are aware that garbage sitting
on public streets is readily accessible. . . . The homeless often rummage through garbage
for food and other items." State v. Hempele, 576 A.2d 793, 819 (N.J. 1990)
(Garibaldi, J., dissenting). In New Hampshire, as elsewhere, "[i]t is not infrequent
that valuable items are placed in the trash in hopes that someone passing by will see them
. . . and make good use of them." Moran v. State, 644 N.E.2d 536, 541 (Ind.
1994).

Moreover, "the police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from
evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the
public." Greenwood, 486 U.S. at 41. "What a person knowingly exposes to
the public, even in his own home or office," is not entitled to constitutional
protection. Id. (quotation omitted).

In the world in which we live, the defendants asserted expectation of privacy is
not objectively reasonable. His trash was placed for pickup on the normal trash day, three
feet from the public road, in his driveway. "It sat exposed to the public, waiting to
be gathered up by the trash collector." Commonwealth v. Pratt, 555 N.E.2d 559,
567 (Mass. 1990). "[H]aving deposited [his trash] in an area particularly
suited for public inspection and, in a manner of speaking, public consumption, for the
express purpose of having strangers take it, . . . [the defendant] could have had no
reasonable expectation of privacy in the inculpatory items [he] discarded." Greenwood,
486 U.S. at 40-41.

The vast majority of courts considering the issue have upheld searches and seizures
under comparable circumstances. See Annotation, Expectation of
PrivacyGarbage, 62 A.L.R.5th 1, 21, 26-62 (1998). In Pratt, for instance,
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, construing a state constitutional provision
virtually identical to Part I, Article 19, held that a defendant had no objectively
reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of a trash bag which he, like the
defendant in this case, had placed for pickup three feet from the street, near his
driveway. Pratt, 555 N.E.2d at 567.

The North Dakota Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in State v. Carriere,
545 N.W.2d 773, 775-76 (N.D. 1996). In Carriere, the defendant argued that "he
had a subjective expectation of privacy in his garbage, evidenced by the fact he had
confronted people when they tampered with the garbage." Id. at 775. Like the
defendant in this case, the defendant in Carriere placed his garbage for trash
collection at the end of his driveway, near the street. Id. The court concluded
that, under these circumstances, the defendants subjective expectation of privacy
was not objectively reasonable. Id. at 775-76; seealsoState v.
McCall, 26 P.3d 1222, 1222-24 (Idaho 2001) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in
garbage set out for collection); State v. Payne, 662 N.E.2d 60, 61-62 (Ohio Ct.
App. 1995) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage bags set out for collection
near end of defendants driveway; "once garbage is placed outside for collection
there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in its contents.").

Because I believe that everyday life experience confirms that any subjective
expectations we may have of hoped-for privacy in our discarded trash are not objectively
borne out, I cannot support a holding that extends constitutional protection to the
defendants trash. Accordingly, I would conclude that the warrantless search at issue
did not violate Part I, Article 19 of our State Constitution.